United States v. Jones

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

June 26, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,v.ERIC JONES, DEFENDANT.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before
the Court is a letter from defendant Eric Jones
(“defendant”), dated November 13, 2017 and
received November 28, 2017, requesting a recommendation on
his behalf to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for
placement in pre-release community confinement (Doc. No. 30
[“Letter”]). The government filed a response
opposing defendant's request (Doc. No. 31
[“Resp.”]). For the reasons set forth herein,
defendant's request is DENIED.

I.
BACKGROUND

On
April 11, 2016, defendant was sentenced to a 46 month term of
imprisonment after pleading guilty to a two-count information
for Conspiracy Against Rights and Hobbs Act Conspiracy in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 1951,
respectively. (Doc. No. 22 [“Am. Judgment”] at
279-80.[1]) Defendant was previously employed as a
police officer, and he used his position to unlawfully seize
money and property from individuals during illegal entries.
(Resp. at 333.) In one instance, defendant prepared and
submitted a falsified affidavit so that he could obtain a
search warrant, which he used to secure entrance to and
unlawfully seize money from the premises. (Id. at
333-34.) The Court ordered defendant to pay a total of $13,
000 in restitution to the victims of his crimes. (Am.
Judgment at 283.)

II.
DISCUSSION

Defendant
now asks this Court to recommend him for “as much time
as is possible in pre-release community confinement” to
the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). (Letter at 332.)
He cites his poor health and that of family members as
justification for placement into pre-release community
confinement, also known as a “residential re-entry
center” (“RRC”). See Demis v.
Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2009). The
government argues that defendant is “time-barred”
and that the nature of his crimes does not warrant a court
recommendation to community confinement. (Resp. at 334.) The
Court agrees with both arguments and DENIES defendant's
request.

The
BOP, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) as amended by
the Second Chance Act, Pub.L. No. 110-199, § 251(a), 122
Stat. 657 (2008), may place an inmate in community
confinement for no longer than twelve months at the end of
his or her sentence. Demis, 558 F.3d at 514. Courts
may recommend a defendant be placed in community confinement
toward the end of his or her sentence under the Second Chance
Act. Martin v. United States, No. 05-17, 2008 WL
3546433, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2008). Although the BOP
must consider recommendations by a court in determining
correctional facility placement, 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b)(4)(B), the BOP ultimately decides where to place
inmates, including placements for pre-release community
confinement. United States v. George, No. 14-20119,
2018 WL 2148179, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2018) (citing
Goldings v. Winn, 383 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 2004)).
The BOP does not evaluate an inmate for pre-release placement
until 17 to 19 months prior to his or her release date.
See Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir.
2008).

When
defendant's letter was filed February 1, 2018, his
expected release date of November 1, 2019 was still 21 months
out. (Resp. at 334.) A request for a recommendation for
community confinement made before the BOP's 17 to 19
month timeframe is premature. See Brown v. Shartle,
No. 4:10CV1000, 2010 WL 2697052, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 6,
2010) (holding that the court could not order the BOP to
consider the defendant for RRC placement because the
defendant invoked the Second Chance Act before the 17 to 19
month period).

Even if
defendant's request were not premature, the nature of his
crime would bar him from being recommended by this Court.
(Resp. at 334.) In his official capacity as a police officer,
whose duty is to “protect and serve” the public,
defendant instead violated the trust of the very individuals
he swore to protect and serve. (Id. at 333.)
Defendant also presents no evidence of behavior during his
incarceration that demonstrates any attempt at
rehabilitation. When courts make recommendations to the
Bureau of Prisons for RRC placement, they usually do so based
on records of an inmate's good behavior and efforts at
self-improvement while in prison. See, e.g.,
United States v. Ahmed, No. 1:07CR00647, 2017 WL
5166427, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2017) (granting motion for
judicial recommendation for RRC placement based on
defendant's extensive record of classes taken while
incarcerated and accumulation of nearly two years of
good-time credit). Defendant is unsuitable for and
undeserving of pre-release community confinement, and this
Court declines to make such a recommendation to the BOP on
his behalf.

III.
CONCLUSION

For the
reasons set forth herein, defendant's request for a
judicial recommendation to the BOP for pre-release community
confinement is DENIED.

IT IS
SO ORDERED.

---------

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.